I came on here i need information on the 2006 election results in bridgeport ct precinct bu precinct in the city. I need to know which precinct Jim Himes and the potensial govenor needs to woork better we need to make Himes stay in office for long the reason why 2006 is imprtent because that was not a presidential election year it was off cycle just like this one coming up. 13,000 votes will not cut it for us in the city we need to be worried about this so please some one give me this dat please please please im begging you thanks.

I just looked. I’ve hit 4700 unique visits every month since November 08. I think I get nearly 100 unique Cheshire visitors per weekday and I really appreciate that… for the past year I’ve been getting feedback from people on it. And generally, most people appreciate the blog… even when they disagree with me.

The one exception is Cheshire’s Political Class. They hate it when I mention things like Town Hall salary increases that went as high as 7% this year (within the same salary banding).

I came on here i need information on the 2006 election results in bridgeport ct precinct bu precinct in the city. I need to know which precinct Jim Himes and the potensial govenor needs to woork better we need to make Himes stay in office for long the reason why 2006 is imprtent because that was not a presidential election year it was off cycle just like this one coming up. 13,000 votes will not cut it for us in the city we need to be worried about this so please some one give me this dat please please please im begging you thanks.

I don’t have precinct-level data at hand, but you may find these posts of interest:

Any up to date Republican is well aware that after lengthy negotiations Healy was recently involved in a merger and shortly after that successful completion
has been on a fact finding mission including a personal inspection of the geography surrounding Dodd’s cottage.

Nobody but you thinks it’s cute or funny or pertinent or even tasteful. Your constant personal remarks about Chris Healy are far more revealing about you than they are about Chris Healy, Republicans or the differences of opinion you have with them.

I barely know the man and have no reason to rush to is defense. But what you’re doing is despicable.

Your cyberstalking of Chris Healy and years of malignant, irrelevant and mean-spirited references to his drinking and DUI arrest aren’t even in the same galaxy as Headless Horseman’s trenchant commentary on DiNardo’s wardrobe — as you know full well. The effort to compare the two demeans you still further, but serves as splendid proof of your essential poverty of character … and your “sincerity.”

Your cyberstalking of Chris Healy and years of malignant, irrelevant and mean-spirited references to his drinking and DUI arrest aren’t even in the same galaxy as Headless Horseman’s trenchant commentary on DiNardo’s wardrobe — as you know full well. The effort to compare the two demeans you still further, but serves as splendid proof of your essential poverty of character … and your “sincerity.”

Red, there is no better barometer of Healy’s effectiveness than to see partisan Democrats personally attack his character. I am proud to be a friend of Chris Healy’s and am impressed that he admitted to having a problem and seeked help. I will continue to support his recovery because I know it’s not easy.

Funny, I always thought liberals were more sensitive to people fighting to recover from drug or alcohol abuse. I guess I was wrong.

I’m happy for Chris Healy if he’s getting married, and staying sober. I mean God bless, I even wish ex-President Bush and his family well, — they’re human after all, — despite how badly W screwed up our country.

Red5–

I’ve never criticized your Chairman for his drinking. That’s his business, not mine. But the way in which he continued to drive drunk, even after getting one conviction, and then another, is serious criminal behavior. And yes, whenever he attacks Democrats for their personal failures, I’ll continue to point out that Chris needed and got a third chance.

Lots of hits on the blogs but I would guess that 90% of the hits are from the same extremely small handful of people who follow these things who amount to 0.0001% of the total number of people voting in any election.

Blogs like these remind me of letters to the editor, pretty much the only people who read them are the political junkies, candidates, campaign workers, town committee members and people who have their minds made up already.

I’m happy for Chris Healy if he’s getting married, and staying sober. I mean God bless, I even wish ex-President Bush and his family well, — they’re human after all, — despite how badly W screwed up our country.

If you’re happy for the Bushes, then I’m expecting you to be downright ecstatic for the Obamas in 2013.

I’ve never criticized your Chairman for his drinking. That’s his business, not mine. But the way in which he continued to drive drunk, even after getting one conviction, and then another, is serious criminal behavior. And yes, whenever he attacks Democrats for their personal failures, I’ll continue to point out that Chris needed and got a third chance.

How many convictions does Healy have, Ed? Let’s see if you know what the he’ll you’re talking about. How many times has Chris Healy been convicted for drunken driving? Once you get past that minor detail, them we’ll move on to whether he attacks them for their personal or their political failures (of which there are thousands).

Brenda… regulars here are political junkies. But the MSM read this blog (and others)… and they still drive public opinion… at least to the extent that they get people thinking about particular topics. So you can dismiss the value of the blogs… and you’re right… they only reach a small % of people… but that small percent includes some very influential people who are great at spreading the word.

How many convictions does Healy have, Ed? Let’s see if you know what the he’ll you’re talking about. How many times has Chris Healy been convicted for drunken driving? Once you get past that minor detail, them we’ll move on to whether he attacks them for their personal or their political failures (of which there are thousands).

Jack,

Here is some information on two of Chris Healy’s drunk driving convictions.

The info at this link comes from the CT Judicial Branch regarding a January 31, 2002 arrest for which he was sentenced and convicted on March 26, 2002 after pleading guilty. He received a suspended sentence and an 18-month probation term.

Another conviction occurred in South Carolina, for which there is a statement directly from the chairman himself about that one:

“On May 15, 2007, I was arrested by the University of South Carolina Police in Columbia, South Carolina and charged with driving under the influence. I was charged and released on May 16 with a court return date of June 1. On June 1st, I pled no contest.”

No contest means he was convicted.

Plus, it is worth noting that it probably was his third arrest because someone typically takes the program for their first one and that would be dismissed. Therefore, no conviction for the first one.

Republican State Chairman Chris Healy informed the GOP’s state central committee at a special meeting Monday night that he has pleaded no contest to a drunken-driving charge in South Carolina.

Healy, 49, an alcoholic who has followed a program of counseling and support since a conviction five years ago, said Tuesday he was embarrassed and disappointed by his lapse.

…

He was arrested May 16, the day after a Republican presidential debate at the University of South Carolina, where Healy also attended a national meeting of GOP state chairs.

In an interview Tuesday afternoon, Healy said he was stopped by a campus police officer, who told him he was weaving as he slowly drove through campus.

Healy failed a field sobriety test. He declined a blood or breath test.

He was in Connecticut when an attorney entered a plea of no contest on his behalf in Columbia, S.C., on June 1, the same day that Republicans were stunned to learn about the arrest of Senate Minority Leader Louis C. DeLuca, R-Woodbury, on a misdemeanor threatening charge.

Healy’s previous conviction was in March 2002, when he was given a suspended sentence and 18-months’ probation by a judge in Meriden. He said his attorney has advised him that his second conviction will result in a mandatory license revocation.

Also, from another Courant article titled “Healy Puts a Tiger in GOP Tank” dated July 6, 2007 by Rick Green:

But Healy, a blue-eyed, lantern-jawed preppie, slipped in May when he jumped on U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney for accepting campaign donations from a group called “The Marijuana Policy Project.” It supports the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Healy blasted an e-mail out to media demanding that Courtney “drop the bong.” Courtney, Healy said, “can’t say no to drugs, or rather those who want to legalize them.”

Turns out Healy’s former boss and Courtney’s predecessor, Republican Rob Simmons, also accepted the reefer money. Days later, Healy himself was stopped for drunken driving in South Carolina, where he attended a presidential candidates debate.

Nothing of value? Jack Dobb, using very strong language, said that Chris Healy was never convicted. He was wrong. All I did was post simple, plain facts with no commentary.

Yes, nothing of value. Are you too simple minded to read the subject matter of the thread? This is a thread about hits of blogs, not DWI convictions, why can’t you understand that simple point and leave your personal vendetta against Chris Healy somewhere else? All you’re doing with your continued childish behavior is making this blog look bad.

I would have thought that Chris B. would have deleted your irrelevant posts by now. Unfortunately, he doesn’t apply his “moderation” rules in a fair manner, just ask Tim White for starters. Maybe that’s one of the reasons his number of hits has tailed off over the past four months.

Yes, nothing of value. Are you too simple minded to read the subject matter of the thread? This is a thread about hits of blogs, not DWI convictions, why can’t you understand that simple point and leave your personal vendetta against Chris Healy somewhere else? All you’re doing with your continued childish behavior is making this blog look bad.

Put getgear or Anderson Scooper on the front page so they can pursue their personal vendettas in a more appropriate manner.

Also note that they began simply by asking where Chris Healy had gone (he’s the author of one of the three blogs), and it was Republicans (RedFive, pufnstuf) that brought up his DUIs. Really, go read through the thread. You’re really being quite ridiculous with your criticism here.

Nothing of value? Jack Dobb, using very strong language, said that Chris Healy was never convicted. He was wrong. All I did was post simple, plain facts with no commentary.

That’s not true. I never said he wasn’t convicted. Ed has been saying all along that Healy has three convictions for drunken driving. He has two, including the plea of guilty in Connecticut and his plea of no contest in South Carolina (which is not close to the same thing as a plea of guilty but does result in a conviction).

Also note that they began simply by asking where Chris Healy had gone (he’s the author of one of the three blogs), and it was Republicans (RedFive, pufnstuf) that brought up his DUIs. Really, go read through the thread. You’re really being quite ridiculous with your criticism here.

No, the gear guy ONLY came in here to keep hammering the DWI issue which has nothing to do with blog hits. The scoop guy asked why the Republican blog went silent. When he got his answer, he dropped it. I’m not being critical of him at all here.

My criticism of the gear guy is correct whether you and he like it or not.

That’s not true. I never said he wasn’t convicted. Ed has been saying all along that Healy has three convictions for drunken driving. He has two, including the plea of guilty in Connecticut and his plea of no contest in South Carolina (which is not close to the same thing as a plea of guilty but does result in a conviction).

I wonder what kinds of ads you guys would run if a Dem politician said “I haven’t been convicted three times – I’ve only pled guilty to a crime three times”.

My criticism of the gear guy is correct whether you and he like it or not.

This is false. Your criticism is that his/her comments were off topic, and they were not. The subject of his DUIs had been brought up by three different Republican / conservative posters in the comments before being addressed by getgear. Your criticism would have been “correct” if it had been directed at RedFive, who initially raised the subject in an attempt to one-up AndersonScooper.

I wonder what kinds of ads you guys would run if a Dem politician said “I haven’t been convicted three times – I’ve only pled guilty to a crime three times”.

That’s irrelevant. Healy has pled guilty once (to the best of my knowledge, and probably yours, too), and he’s not a politician. He’s an executive director of a political party who answers to a party committee, not an elected official who answers to an electorate. Big difference.

The man has admitted his personal failings and taken steps to address them. Regardless, as I said above, he doesn’t answer to everyone — he answers to registered Connecticut Republicans. If you’re not one, why do you care?

No samuel, I’m right no matter how you spin it. The gear guy was contributing NOTHING to the original discussion regarding blog hits. He ONLY came in here to keep hammering the DWI issue which once again, is not the subject of this thread. Why can’t you understand that?

samuel, do you have ANYTHING to add to the discussion? You like the gear guy had absolutely nothing to say related to the original discussion regarding the number of hits on blogs that Heath discussed in the original post.

You and the gear guy aren’t doing the reputation of this blog any good at all. If you don’t have anything relevant to add, can you please drop your childish tit-for-tat?

No samuel, I’m right no matter how you spin it. The gear guy was contributing NOTHING to the original discussion regarding blog hits. He ONLY came in here to keep hammering the DWI issue which once again, is not the subject of this thread. Why can’t you understand that?

You may be justified in your dislike for getgear, but you are wrong to assert that he changed the topic.

If you would like to criticize RED FIVE for changing the discussion to one about DUIs, then you will have no quarrel with me.

But attacking getgear for going off topic makes you look petty, because he/she didn’t change the subject — a fellow Republican (who you appear to not want to criticize) did.

If that action was truly over the line, you’re criticizing the wrong person. And if you simply object to the content what getgear thinks, you should just say so and not dress it up in this “he changed the topic” silliness.

After much research I have to say that you are 100% correct in asserting that Mr. Healy does not have three DUI convictions. That’s because Connecticut offers first-time offenders accelerated rehabilitation through the Alcohol Education Program. Meaning the case and charges on his first DUI arrest were dismissed.

So for the record, it’s three drunk driving arrests, but just two drunk driving convictions. And my sincerest apologies to Jack Dobb, or whatever your name really is.

The funny thing is that we’re talking once again about Chris Healy’s criminal record, (during his honeymoon, ugh), when all I wanted to know was why the official Republican blog had gone dark for more than two weeks during these budget negotiations.

sam, your twisting of the facts and making things up is just plain comical. I never said I “dislike” the gear guy and I’m not “attacking” him nor did I say he “changed the topic.” Are you just plain stupid or do you deliberately lie? Either way you’re wrong.

redfive responded to the scoop guy the way he did because it’s obvious that he has knowledge of the scoop guy cyberstalking Chris Healy. My criticism of the gear guy is proper because of the reasons I state previously.

Unfortunately the scoop guy is now just as wrong as the gear guy with his last pile of off-topic crap STILL harping on the DWI thing. I’m surprised at him because he was previously praised for with dropping it however I gave him far too much credit. He’s now no better than the gear guy.

You three guys (you, scoop and gear) are making yourselves and this blog look bad which again is unfortunate.

sam, your twisting of the facts and making things up is just plain comical. I never said I “dislike” the gear guy and I’m not “attacking” him nor did I say he “changed the topic.” Are you just plain stupid or do you deliberately lie? Either way you’re wrong.

You didn’t say “he changed the topic”, you asserted it by writing:

I thought this was a thread called “For Those of You Keeping Score” which has to do with internet traffic on political blogs?

The gear guy isn’t contributing anything of value other than confirming that he’s a mean spirited prick.

And further by writing:

No, the gear guy ONLY came in here to keep hammering the DWI issue which has nothing to do with blog hits.

In fact, the “gear guy” was responding to comments by Republicans that brought it up. In fact, there were three comments from Republicans that discussed Chris Healy’s DUI convictions before getgear posted anything at all.

If you had instead written:

I thought this was a thread called “For Those of You Keeping Score” which has to do with internet traffic on political blogs?

The Red Five guy shouldn’t have gotten these crazy libs started on this irrelevant DUI subject!

… or, simply:

The gear guy isn’t contributing anything of value other than confirming that he’s a mean spirited prick.

… without the comment that the discussion had digressed from its original subject, you would have been making a coherent and logical criticism.

Instead, you want to rant about how the Democrats in the thread (who didn’t start the discussion of Healy’s DUIs or drinking) are offering a “pile of off-topic crap,” when it is, in fact, the Republicans in this thread who started that discussion in the first place. When they did, further discussion of the subject is then on-topic — just like your replies to me are on-topic now.

If you do not like the subject of Chris Healy’s DUI convictions, please counsel RedFive, pufnstuf, and Jack Dobb to refrain from introducing the subject in the future.

Your strange pursuit of getgear for making two comments on a subject that had already been discussed by three Republicans is off the mark, and I will continue to say so as long as you care to carry on this discussion.

That is true. I inferred this from the fact that you called getgear a “mean spirited prick” despite apparently having both knowledge and a strong interest in the enforcement of the moderation rules of the site.

If there’s a reason apart from personal animus why you were moved to break the rules in the same thread that you called for their enforcement by calling the fourth person (and only the fourth person) to bring up Chris Healy’s DUI convictions a derogatory name, then I will apologize for underestimating your goodness and charity.

If you do not like the subject of Chris Healy’s DUI convictions, please counsel RedFive, pufnstuf, and Jack Dobb to refrain from introducing the subject in the future.

When did I introduce the subject? Alcoholism isn’t very funny.

After much research I have to say that you are 100% correct in asserting that Mr. Healy does not have three DUI convictions. That’s because Connecticut offers first-time offenders accelerated rehabilitation through the Alcohol Education Program. Meaning the case and charges on his first DUI arrest were dismissed.

If the first conviction was erased, wouldn’t that make it one conviction?

I’m happy for Chris Healy if he’s getting married, and staying sober. I mean God bless, I even wish ex-President Bush and his family well, — they’re human after all, — despite how badly W screwed up our country.

Seems like whining to me….

I’ve never criticized your Chairman for his drinking. That’s his business, not mine….

On second hand (in the same paragraph yet..)

And yes, whenever he attacks Democrats for their personal failures, I’ll continue to point out that Chris needed and got a third chance.

So which is it? Seems like Democrat doublespeak to me….

And, yet another mention…

The funny thing is that we’re talking once again about Chris Healy’s criminal record, (during his honeymoon, ugh), when all I wanted to know was why the official Republican blog had gone dark for more than two weeks during these budget negotiations.

Uh, Mr. Politico…. you really think, especially with the news black-out, that Healy would be what, live blogging from the residence?

Also note that they began simply by asking where Chris Healy had gone (he’s the author of one of the three blogs), and it was Republicans (RedFive, pufnstuf) that brought up his DUIs. Really, go read through the thread. You’re really being quite ridiculous with your criticism here.

SamuelCT, you are outright fabricating stories. I never bought up DUI’s but only responded after others took their cheap shots at Healy. If your only defense is to re-write history than go ahead. But there are at least two people on this blog that know you are not telling the truth.

SamuelCT, you are outright fabricating stories. I never bought up DUI’s but only responded after others took their cheap shots at Healy. If your only defense is to re-write history than go ahead. But there are at least two people on this blog that know you are not telling the truth.

RedFive mentioned Chris Healy’s DUIs first in #13, and you mentioned them second in #16.

RedFive mentioned Chris Healy’s DUIs first in #13, and you mentioned them second in #16.

Samct, I’m so glad that you posted that I mentioned it in #16. The record clearly reflects that Bruce made drinking comments in post # 11. Where I went to school, 11 comes before 16 therefore, I was responding. Sam, please check it out for yourself while I await your apology.

Samct, I’m so glad that you posted that I mentioned it in #16. The record clearly reflects that Bruce made drinking comments in post # 11. Where I went to school, 11 comes before 16 therefore, I was responding. Sam, please check it out for yourself while I await your apology.

You seem to be mistaking drinking (legal) with drunk driving (illegal). I can produce some reference materials for you if you need them.